The federal National
Historic Preservation Act has served as a guide for many state, local,
and tribal historic preservation laws and ordinances. State, local,
and tribal governments have also developed policies that address archeological
resources located on their lands. The scope of non-federal laws and
policies tend to mirror federal historic preservation and archeological
resources laws and regulations (i.e., National Historical Preservation
Act; Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation).
However, non-federal entities, especially in the last decade, tend to
write more detail into their historic preservation and archeological
resource protection laws and policies than appears in a corresponding
federal law or policy.

In 1991, only about
a third of all U.S. states had issued laws, regulations, or policies
that addressed the management of archeological collections (Carnett
1991). By 1997, laws in 35 states mentioned curatorial issues and at
least 20 states had curation policies and guidelines. Most of these
curation policies closely follow 36 CFR 79. By 1999, 37 states had laws
that addressed archeological curation (State Historic Preservation Database;
see this section's Links page). These findings
suggest that states are increasingly concerned with the long-term management
of and access to state-owned collections.

A Recent Survey

Policies and guidelines
involving the collection of material remains during field survey, testing,
and mitigation (or data recovery) directly impact the nature of the
resulting collection, which then must be prepared and managed for the
long term. In 1998, the Army Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of
Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections
(MCX-CMAC) contracted staff from the Illinois State Museum Society to
conduct a non-random survey on existing policies concerning field collecting,
collections preparation for curation (i.e., cataloging, labeling, and
packing), and long-term curation and use (Wiant and Loveless 1999).
Six groups were surveyed: State Historic Preservation Officers, State
Archeologists who are not associated with the SHPO, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers, State Department of Transportation, University-based
Archeologists, and Archeological Consultants.

The survey results
on the policies of 53 State Historic Preservation Officers are revealing.
First, approximately one third of the SHPOs were not involved in field
work so did not have detailed policies on either field collecting or
management of the resulting collection. However, 83% had a field collecting
policy of which 91% were written. Four of the SHPOs with written field
collecting policies had different procedures for collecting prehistoric
versus historic material remains. On a related note, eight State Archeologists
were surveyed of which four had a written field collecting policy (two
developed their own; two used the policy of another agency). Of those
four, three had different field collecting procedures for prehistoric
versus historic material remains.

The SHPO policies
for collections preparation and long-term curation are also revealing.
First, only 40% of the SHPOs cataloged artifacts and 36% cataloged associated
records. Three quarters of those that cataloged artifacts had written
procedures, whereas just over 50% had written procedures for cataloging
documentation. Second, 42% of the SHPOs were involved in the curation
of objects and 43% in long-term curation of associated records, mostly
on a long-term basis. Only 59% of these, however, had written long-term
curation policies or, at a minimum, a mission statement on curation.

The eight State
Archeologists surveyed that are not part of a State Historic Preservation
Office were located in a museum or university. Five of the eight surveyed
cataloged both artifacts and documentation and all had written policies
or procedures for these activities. Interestingly, six of the eight
SAs had an electronic catalog of artifacts and documents. Seven of the
eight SAs curated artifacts and documents of which only one curated
for the short term. The one SA that did not curate was hampered because
the state did not have a central repository. Five of the seven that
curated had a written policy on the related activities. Unfortunately,
the survey report does not discuss whether the policies of each SA filled
gaps in the SHPO policies or were duplicate or conflicting policies.

Wiant and Loveless
(1999) also surveyed fourteen THPOs concerning specific policies on
field collecting, collections preparation, and long-term curation. Whereas
71% had a field collecting policy (one THPO tailored the policy to the
project), about half of these were written in 1998. More importantly,
50% of the THPOs strictly forbade collecting on tribal lands unless
artifacts might be destroyed. When collecting did occur, 50% of the
THPOs cataloged both artifacts and documents. Of those, 57% had written
procedures for cataloging. Four or 29% of the THPOs curated artifacts
and documents of which one did so on a project-by-project basis. Two
of the four had a written collections management policy.

The above discussion
is merely an overview of parts of the MCX-CMAC survey conducted by the
Illinois State Museum Society. There is considerably more useful information
in the document, some of which is presented in the next sub-section.